Baby machines, personal responsibility, and government.

[AtheistArchon]

- I've been meaning to write an essay for some time now about the idea of government-controlled families. In other words, a perverbial "license to procreate". Brutish as it may seem on the surface, I'd like to examine it rationally. This isn't a concentrated attempt at covering all the bases, just food for the thread.

- We've all heard the Stories of useless/irresponsible people (men and women alike) who simply have no interest in investing even the slightest amount of work into family planning, and who perceive the government as supporting them better the more kids they pop out that they can't support.

- We've also heard the stories about parents who are almost unanimously regarded as unfit to rear children. Additionally, we all know the deal behind the whole abortion debate: Rape? Accident? Incest? Already have 15 kids? Can't afford a can of beans? No matter, pop that kid out anyway.

- We should ask: where's the line drawn between responsible, capable adults having children and a person/couple/gang who couldn't care less? And should we even make any moves towards restricting even the worst parent imaginable from having children?

- Something to consider is the fact that in this day and age, in America and the rest of the "civilized" world, there is no environmental pressure that threatens the human species. Resources are growing ever more scarce. The problem only gets worse in 3rd-world nations like India, where overpopulation is a serious issue and people really do starve to death. We don't need to have a truckload of babies to sustain humanity. In fact, a reduction of the population in many areas would enable the end result to live much more comfortably and with many more resources.

- This in mind, why have a child? Nobody "needs" to reproduce. Lots of people "want" to reproduce. The reasons are many and varied, most of them the result of religious indoctrination, but in general it's seen as a societal norm to grow up and have kids. I'm also not discounting evolutionary instinct either, something which may in fact lie behind all the other indoctrinative efforts (including religion). Why don't more people ask themselves why they want to have kids before they rush headlong into it?

- As an example, my wife and I are childless, and we will never have any kids. I've had surgery to make certain (or at least more certain) that this will be the case, and we both felt this way before we got married. We both work, we both contribute to society, we both have tons of free time. We sleep through the night without fail, barring the occasional barking dog. We have enough money to eat out four and five times a week if we like. We never need babysitters. We live comfortably and we survive successfully, and neither of us have even a college degree. But this lifestyle is almost never touted in our society. The ideal is always portrayed as husband, wife, and 2.5 kids.

- Something else to think about is, of course, personal freedom. Why should the government step in to tell a single woman she can't have a child if she wants one? How much money should you have to make before you're "allowed" to get pregnant? Where is the cut-off point for the number of kids you're allowed to have vs. your ability to support them?

- Finally, does even a polished and successful plan to forcefully control childbirth compare to a society where freedom allows both capable and disastrous parental experiments? Or does the long-term survivability of the species trump the personal desire to reproduce - because widespread reduction in population is inevitable if a critical mass is achieved. Do the mere desires of a couple outweigh the starvation and death of a child that can't be supported?

- Weigh in, I'd like to hear everyone's responses.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Unless we get a move on about colonizing other planets, eventually we're going to run out of room and will have to start controlling reproduction as a matter of necessity.

We already have the means to control reproduction individually. The problem of unwanted pregnancy arises because people are either ignorant of those means, do not have them available, or are simply lacking in sense. To prevent all unwanted pregancies, it cannot be left up to the individual forever, because that simply doesn't work. People are stupid.

I think that the days of government intervention in reproduction are not only realistic, but inevitable. And it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; provided that the decision on who would and who wouldn't reproduce is based on the right factors: the ability to care for the child properly. I would hate for the decision to be made based on the genes, or the possible health of the child, or other factors. But that's the can of worms that will have to be opened...

Provided the government doesn't do anything to prevent or discourage sex, or do anything permanent or unpleasant to the bodies of the citizens to prevent reproduction, I think it could work. (But a regime bent on wee-wee chopping, to quote Cartman, is doomed to failure, as would be an "abstinence only" program.)


[modest proposal]

Actually, come to think of it, the best solution might be something that was mentioned in passing a while ago on another thread. Suppose they invented a pill or (reversible) surgical method to change a person's sexual orientation? Make the entire population homosexual, so they can enjoy sex while being disinclined to reproduce, then reverse the sexual orientation of anyone who wants to breed. Although probably advocating mandatory homosexuality would be far more controversial than advocating forced sterilization. I admit it's probably a kooky idea. (It would make an excellent premise for a porn movie, though.)

[/end modest proposal]

 

[Michael Redman]

- We've all heard the Stories of useless/irresponsible people (men and women alike) who simply have no interest in investing even the slightest amount of work into family planning, and who perceive the government as supporting them better the more kids they pop out that they can't support.

- We've also heard the stories about parents who are almost unanimously regarded as unfit to rear children. Additionally, we all know the deal behind the whole abortion debate: Rape? Accident? Incest? Already have 15 kids? Can't afford a can of beans? No matter, pop that kid out anyway.

We've all heard anecdotes and racist urban myths. So? That's evidence of what, exactly?

And should we even make any moves towards restricting even the worst parent imaginable from having children?

If you ask Americans to chose the worst parents imaginable, top of the list is going to be people who don't believe in God. Sorry, but your idea scares me.

And aren't you mixing things up a bit here? The issues of third world growth rate, where many people would be perfectly happy to have fewer kids if they could, are not the same as the developed world, where some people may want to have too many kids, but the natural growth rate is not a problem.

 

[Tmy]

By baby machines, I hope you inlcude the non poor.

ya know the big families who arent on welfare yet suck up tax exemptions and freebie schools ect...

 

[AtheistArchon]

We've all heard anecdotes and racist urban myths. So? That's evidence of what, exactly?

- Are you saying there are no issues with welfare groupies? Are you implying there is no overpopulation concern?

If you ask Americans to chose the worst parents imaginable, top of the list is going to be people who don't believe in God. Sorry, but your idea scares me.

- But I'm not suggesting this. Nor am I endorsing the idea of government-run population control; I'm just putting the thing out there for debate.

- However, if we did consider forming government rules to determine the fitness of parents, I imagine religious convictions could not be a factor if we pay any attention to the Constitution. I'm not asking the Christian Coalitition to police the masses, after all. The determination would have to be based upon purely secular means: criminal background, average income, mental health.

And aren't you mixing things up a bit here? The issues of third world growth rate, where many people would be perfectly happy to have fewer kids if they could,

- If they could? I wasn't aware people were being forcibly thrust together in reluctant orgies.

are not the same as the developed world, where some people may want to have too many kids, but the natural growth rate is not a problem.

- But it is a problem. Or do you want to wait until we become as overpopulated as China before we address the issue?

By baby machines, I hope you inlcude the non poor.

- Of course. There's no need for wealthy couples to have one kid or ten, even if they can afford them. They simply want them.

ya know the big families who arent on welfare yet suck up tax exemptions and freebie schools ect...

- True, true. However, I don't mind paying some taxes for public schools and such. I'm not suggesting we hang parents out to dry completely.

 

[Tony]

However, if we did consider forming government rules to determine the fitness of parents, I imagine religious convictions could not be a factor if we pay any attention to the Constitution. I'm not asking the Christian Coalitition to police the masses, after all. The determination would have to be based upon purely secular means: criminal background, average income, mental health.

How do you propose to enforce it? What's to stop a poor, schizophrenic thief from having kids? And once they do, what do you do with the child?

 

[geni]

- Are you saying there are no issues with welfare groupies? Are you implying there is no overpopulation concern?

The rate of births in many parts of europe has droped below what is required to mentain a stedy population. So no I'm not concerned about overpopulation.

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Additionally, we might consider this: Even the staunchest conservative Christian advises that their daughter remain abstinent until (at least) they get married. The rational argument behind wanting young people to "wait" to have sex is that it might result in pregnancy, and a young person lacks two important things that being a parent requires:

1. Maturity
2. Financial stability

- Now, for some people (the radical religious right), marriage is simply the endorsement of god, and all other factors be damned; poverty, maturity, what-have-you, it's your duty now to churn out kids because god says so. Rushing a teen couple into a church doesn't automatically make them fit to be parents.

- With this in mind, one could say that we already try to limit reproduction, albeit mostly on religious grounds. Is there no parallel we can draw between the more rational arguments involved and older couples? (Older than 17 or 18, that is.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

The rate of births in many parts of europe has droped below what is required to mentain a stedy population. So no I'm not concerned about overpopulation.

But those drops in Europe do not counter the accelerating birth rates elsewhere. A million fewer births in Europe doesn't make up for a billion more births in Asia.

 

[AtheistArchon]

How do you propose to enforce it? What's to stop a poor, schizophrenic thief from having kids? And once they do, what do you do with the child?

- Good questions. It's probably not practical to sterilize every newborn and then reverse it when they get "approved" for procreation. We could presume it for the sake of argument though I think.

The rate of births in many parts of europe has droped below what is required to mentain a stedy population. So no I'm not concerned about overpopulation.

- In a closed environment, maybe you would be okay. But eventually, global overpopulation would reach out and touch you.

 

[geni]

But those drops in Europe do not counter the accelerating birth rates elsewhere. A million fewer births in Europe doesn't make up for a billion more births in Asia.

Perhaps but many parts of the world are heading in the same direction.

 

[CBL4]

There is no population problem. As people get richer, the population increase slow and the population will start dropping in much of Europe. The world population will top out at 10 billion give or take. No peaceful country in the world has starvation. Few even have malnutrition and this ends once a not too horrible government is in place for a few years. There are no global shortages of natural resources. The trend is for all natural resources to get cheaper.

CBL

 

[Michael Redman]

Is there a problem with overpopulation due to birth rate in this country? I don't think so.

Is there such a problem with individuals having way more children than they can afford that we need to restrict fundamental liberties? You certainly haven't provided even a hint of evidence that there is.

You aren't going to get to pick the standards for a baby-licensing system, nor are you going to get to decide who does pick the standards, nor how they go about doing it. A plan like that proposed in this country is going to have standards that appeal to the most people, and to the most vocal.

I take it it's your position that women who don't have access to birth control and don't want more kids should not have sex. Ever. Even if their husbands insist.

Married adults are going to have sex. Helping them with family planning is smart. Expecting them to practice abstinence is foolish.

The problems of overpopulation in the third world are not the same as the problems associated with parenting (assuming there are any) in this and other developed countries. Restricting reproductive freedom here will not address the issue of third world overpopulation. These are two separate issues.

 

[geni]

- In a closed environment, maybe you would be okay. But eventually, global overpopulation would reach out and touch you.

What makes you think that the rest of the world will not follow europe?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps but many parts of the world are heading in the same direction.

And with a smaller, older population, they'll be well able to defend their borders should a wildly overpopulated foreign country decide to start wondering aloud "Just why do those guys get so much space?"

 

[TragicMonkey]

There is no population problem. As people get richer, the population increase slow and the population will start dropping in much of Europe. The world population will top out at 10 billion give or take.

What if the people keep to a particular set of beliefs that countradict a slowing in increased population? Birth control, of any kind, is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Either a) the Church changes its position or b) people stop listening to the Church in order to make the levelling-off of population growth work.

You're also overlooking the fact that as societies get richer, the population lives longer. The death rate will drop as well. Unless it equals the birth rate, you will not have balance.

 

[geni]

And with a smaller, older population, they'll be well able to defend their borders should a wildly overpopulated foreign country decide to start wondering aloud "Just why do those guys get so much space?"

How many people does it take to launch a nuclear weapon? right now have you got a worthwile point?

 

[CBL4]

The government has no business mandating who can and cannot have children unless there is clear evidence of child abuse or neglect. I would not trust myself to decide who is fit to be a parent and I certainly would not trust people appointed by our president or congress.

To have freedom, we must give everyone rights including the right to procreate.

However, the government can and should attach strings to handouts. If you want to get welfare or other government assistance, you should be temporarily sterialized (e.g. norplant). If people want they can continue to have children OR they can leech off society but they cannot do both.

If you cannot care for yourself, then you have shown that you are not capable of caring for children. Therefore you are currently an unfit parent.

CBL

 

[geni]

What if the people keep to a particular set of beliefs that countradict a slowing in increased population? Birth control, of any kind, is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Either a) the Church changes its position or b) people stop listening to the Church in order to make the levelling-off of population growth work.

Going by italy I think It's going to be option b

You're also overlooking the fact that as societies get richer, the population lives longer. The death rate will drop as well. Unless it equals the birth rate, you will not have balance.

unless you think there is not going to be an uperbound on human life expectancy then this is at most a short term problem.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How many people does it take to launch a nuclear weapon? right now have you got a worthwile point?

That unless you're prepared to use weapons of mass destruction, it's the numbers that matter. I didn't think I was being entirely silly by asserting that of two countries, the one with the larger population and greater birth rate stands a better chance of being around in a hundred years and getting its way. France and China have equal technological means. Which would win, in a war?